Monday, March 24, 2014

For many years, the Indian public in particular, had very little
interest in who controlled the internet and decisions taken at a
structural level that shaped its future.

The press carried little tidbits about the World Summit on
Information Society; a pair of United Nations-sponsored conferences
about information, communication and, with an aim to bridge the
so-called global digital divide separating rich countries from poor
countries by spreading access to the internet in the developing world,
the UN body, International Telecommunications Union (ITU); which
coordinates the shared global use of the radio spectrum, promotes
international cooperation in assigning satellite orbits, works to
improve telecommunication infrastructure in the developing world, and
assists in the development and coordination of worldwide technical
standards, and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN), which coordinates the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
(IANA) functions, which are key technical services critical to the
continued operations of the Internet’s underlying address book, the
Domain Name System (DNS) and also UN Commission of Science and
Technology Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation, where governments come
together to discuss issues like internet governance.

What was commonly known followed a similar trajectory: America invented the internet, it is a global commons, and it works well.

Over the last few years, however, as the Indian experience with the
internet has matured, questions of governance, both internally and
externally have started making headlines. Allegations of mass
surveillance have hogged all headlines. Another factor cannot be missed:
the Indian digital economy is growing rapidly, and while internet
governance is nowhere close to being an election issue in India,
domestically, access, freedom of expression, cyber crime and cyber
security are growing concerns. There also the reality that as India’s
population gets increasingly connected, it will host one of the biggest
online demographies in the world. Therefore, India’s views and actions
in terms of how the internet should grow and be governed is crucial to
the future of the internet itself.

In October 2011, the Indian government proposed that a UN Committee
for Internet-Related Policies (CIRP) be formed, so that governments can
debate and deliberate on vital issues such as intellectual property
enforcement, privacy and data protection, online filtering and
censorship and network neutrality. Those opposed to the idea have warned
that the “open” nature of the internet will be threatened by
governments who favor a controlled and censored form of the internet.
Also the proposed structure of the UN-CIRP
seemed to be the very anti-thesis of a dynamic internet; it involved
setting up a 50 member committee that only met for two weeks in the
year. Those opposed to this bureaucratic suggestion, instead, favour a
multi-stakeholder transnational governance mechanism, which gives all
stakeholders of the internet a place on the table; including
governments, businesses and civil society members.

The last few months of 2013 were very active internationally, on
questions of internet governance. Three big international events made
headlines, and India’s role in them is especially telling. The first was
the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) in Indonesia in November. This
event brought together all members of civil society on a common platform
to deliberate on the rules of global governance, but in effect did not
have any binding powers. Given that it was held in the wake of the
Snowden revelations of NSA surveillance, the conversations centered
around the need to ensure better protection of all citizens in the
online environment and to reach a proper balance between actions driven
by national security and respect for freedom of expression, privacy and
human rights. While in the 2012 IGF, India’s Minister for Communication
Technology had been present, in 2013, was “extremely small” according to
Dr Anja Kovaks who participated there. She added that,
“many developing countries look up to India’s engagement with
internet-governance forums to ensure that the concerns of the developing
world are not ignored during policy-making.”

In December, 2013, the UN Commission of Science and Technology Working Group on Enhanced Cooperation released a statement which also carried India’s proposal that,
“The UN General Assembly could embark on creation of a multilateral
body for formulation of international Internet-related public policies.
The proposed body should include all stakeholders and relevant
inter-governmental and international organisations in advisory capacity
within their respective roles as identified in Tunis agenda and WGIG
report. Such body should also develop globally applicable principles on
public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of
critical Internet resources.” Earlier this year, a note written by India’s National Security Council Secretariat
(NSCS), leaked to an Indian newspaper in March 2014, warns of the DNS
system under US control, and goes on to say that “India’s position is
aligned with Russia, Saudi Arabia and Iran who also want governments to
collectively drive internet management worldwide…” It adds that, “trust
in the internet has declined and India’s objective in the Geneva session
was to ensure its concerns are accommodated in whatever international
regime of Internet governance finally emerges.”

However, in the backdrop of continuing internet governance discussions, came the announcement by Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff
that in the light of revelations of global mass surveillance by the US,
Brazil was going to host an internet governance conference — NETmundial
— in April 2014. This announcement was made after consulting the head
of ICANN, Fadi Chehde. In contrast, the Indian reaction to these
revelations seemed rather muted, perhaps because India too is building a
mass surveillance regime within its national borders. It is also
believed that Brazil asked India take a bigger role with them, however,
Indian foreign ministry officials have stated off-the-record that
details about the conference were not easy to come by from Brazil.
Either way, the conference dates coincide with Indian general elections
of 2014 and the formation of a new national government, and will most
likely see a small Indian delegation.

A month before the Brazil conference comes the announcement
by the United States government that the U.S. National
Telecommunications and Information Administration will end its formal
relationship with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers in late 2015, with ICANN developing a new global governance
model. It has been made clear by the ICANN President and CEO Fadi Chehadé
that the transition out of NTIA was “not a final decision to surrender
control of the internet” or about announcing a new law or policy. “The
[U.S.] government also set clear boundaries for that discussion,
including a very clear statement that it will not release control of
these functions to any government-led or inter-governmental organization
solution.” Former CEO of ICANN Rod Beckstorm gave an interview in which
he speculated that the US government made the announcement now “because
they face the serious risk of losing even more at the upcoming
NETmundial conference on internet governance in Brazil. This event could
potentially lead to greater United Nations control over the internet
and open the door to increased influence by countries opposed to a free
and open internet.”

This, of course, is a hint that the US government would rather
restructure ICANN and keep the multistakeholder approach towards
internet governance open, rather than let some governments steer the
course towards a government led body governing the internet.

In a reaction to the announcement, Member of Parliament and vocal
critic of the Indian government’s position, Rajeev Chandrasekhar told
Index that “India needs to think ahead, because its position on the
governance of the internet and its inexplicable alliance with China,
Saudi Arabia on this issue has been based on the so called US control of
the net. First, the Ministry of External Affairs’s entrenched position
of a UN body needs to be withdrawn forthwith. I have substantiated its
problems at multiple levels. India has lost its leadership status to
Brazil in the internet governance space, thanks to government’s
position, and reflects complete failure of thought by Indian
leadership.” Looking towards the future, Chandrasekhar added that, “the
new government needs to hold national, open public consultation on the
issue. Parliament needs to be involved. Governments want to regulate;
industry invests, builds infrastructure and drives innovation; and civil
society/academia protects civil ideals and users’ interest, including
privacy, free speech and human rights. A free, open, safe, secure and
truly global internet can only be managed through a multi-stakeholder
mechanism with specific areas of intergovernmental cooperation, such as
cyber terrorism, international jurisdiction.”

Other civil society voices, too, have called for the Indian government to rise to this new challenge. Security expert, Dr. Raja Mohan wrote in the Indian Express that,
“Delhi has a long record of posturing at multilateral forums and
shooting itself in the foot when it comes to national interest. Believe
it or not, in the 1970s, India opposed, at the UN, the direct broadcast
satellite technology in the name of protecting its territorial
sovereignty. With an IT sector that is deeply integrated with the global
economy and contributing nearly 8 per cent of India’s GDP as well as
the world’s third-largest group of internet users, India does not have
the luxury of quixotic pursuits. Delhi’s negotiating position must be
rooted firmly in India’s economic interests. Issue-based coalitions —
with countries, companies and civil society groups — are critical for
ensuring the best possible outcomes.”

Given the Indian government’s taste for pushing unilateral
mechanisms for governing the internet at an international level, and
Indian civil society, which for the most part seems to vocally support a
multistakeholder approach, the Indian elections might bring about a new
opportunity for both sides to find clarity. Some argue that
multistakeholder models give an equal seat to governments like the US,
but also to their corporate giants such as Google, Facebook, AT&T,
which might help them secure a majority over crucial issues and
therefore an international unilateral model might be beneficial for
smaller countries. Alternatively, a government-led model, as India
suggests, pre-supposes a consultative mechanism within countries so that
the will of the people can be reflected. One thing is clear, with its
technology boom, population, and growing dependence on the internet for
economic prosperity, governance and free expression, the country can no
longer afford to not assume a leadership role in this area, while at the
same time sticking to its core democratic principles. It needs to rise
to its leadership potential and reflect the will of its people.

Thursday, March 13, 2014

Improbable as it may seem, but 67 Kashmiri university students were
briefly charged with sedition for cheering for Pakistan, and celebrating
its win over India, during an Asia Cup cricket match in early March.

Sections of the Indian Penal Code that they were charged under were the following:

Section 124a – “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to
bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards the Government established by law..”

Section 153 – “Whoever malignantly, or wantonly by doing anything
which is illegal, gives provocation to any person intending or knowing
it to be likely that such provocation will cause the offence of rioting
to be committed shall..”

Section 427 – “Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards..”

The students were watching the match in Meerut, at the Swami
Vivekanand Subharti University when the ruckus started. According to
conflicting reports, the hooting of the Kashmiri students at Pakistan’s
win caused those supporting India to chase them and throw stones at their rooms. The Kashmiri students protested the next day, but the university officials suspended them for three days
as “resentment was growing in other hostels because of their behavior.”
The police charged them under the Indian Penal Code. After a public
outcry, the Uttar Pradesh police dropped the charges, however, there is a
battle of words between the police and university officials as to who
initiated the charges against the students.

The incident, once again, has exposed the fragile faultlines between
Kashmir and India – and the perceived disloyalty of the Kashmiri
Muslims to India. The controversy has brought about some harsh
reactions, including a tweet by famous lyricist Javed Akhtar
that said – “Why the suspension of those 67 Kashmiri students who
cheered Pakistan is revoked. They should be rusticated and sent back to
Kashmir.” Others, like Shivam Vij, took a more nuanced position,
stating that, “not taking action against them would have escalated the
violence at the university and in the city. The Indian students at the
university were responding with the same sentiment that makes Kashmiri
Muslims suspect their Hindu minority: the sentiment of nationalism. How
acceptable would it be to a Pakistani if some in Pakistan openly and
publicly cheered for the Indian cricket team in a match against
Pakistan?”

Tidbits from Kashmir also help cement this view of the Muslims from the Kashmir Valley to the rest of India. Reports that firecrackers celebrated Pakistan’s win all night, and that a skirmish between Indian army personnel and local Kashmir youth celebrating the results of the match ended in a stabbing. There have also been defiant editorials
from Pakistan countering the action against the students, declaring
that, “it is not the win of Pakistan but the loss of India against any
cricket playing nation that revives interest for cricket in Kashmir.
India’s loss is a temporary relief from all the melancholy and grief
that the people of Kashmir go through on a daily basis, inflicted by the
Indian state and its military architecture.”

While this incident in question might have, on the surface, been
about cricket and extremely ungentlemanly behavior, very quickly it
seemed to have translated into politics as usual. A outcry about serious
charges against university students – Kashmiris who had travelled far
from home to obtain an Indian degree – was raised by many Indians in the
media, by the Chief Minister of Jammu and Kashmir, and international
groups. Many of these students were in Meerut given under the PMSSS, or
the Prime Minister’s Special Scholarship Scheme, meant to enhance job
opportunities for Kashmiri youth, meant mainly for low-income families.
This is part of a larger drive to assimilate Kashmiri youth into the
mainstream economic and educational life of India.

Indian Express’s Shekhar Gupta lamented the controversy
given cricket’s globalized nature where it is increasingly normal to
cheer for favourite player from another country. Instead he feels that
“India’s majority has a minority complex” and this is coming to the fore
“when the BJP is surging ahead, and not because of any mandir, tension
with Pakistan, or rash of terror attacks. And when, in fairness, you
have to acknowledge that there isn’t even a vaguely communal appeal in
its leader Narendra Modi’s campaign message. India has had a 13-year
period of total peace, unprecedented in its independent history. There
has been a steep decline in terror incidents. Even the Maoists seem to
be shrinking slowly. And yet, our level of jingoism is as if we were
approaching an imminent war, as if India were under siege, its borders
getting violated with impunity, the enemy at the gates.” Many echo
Gupta’s view, fearing that those who believe the BJP under Narendra Modi
will form government after the elections in April 2014, might be quick
to adopt the jingoistic Hindu nationalism the party was based on.

Adding a layer to this incident is an interesting point of view
offered by journalist Prayaag Akbar who writes about India’s many
Muslims who feel affinity towards Pakistani cricket team, but are rarely
called out for it, unlike the Kashmiri Muslims. He writes – “that some
Indian Muslims, not just Kashmiris, support Pakistan during cricket
matches must be acknowledged. But categorisation is self-fulfilling,
some will say, and sport excites tribalism. It does not immediately
follow—and this seems to be the consideration at the crux of the
issue—that they will support Pakistan in a war against India. Yet it
does not immediately follow that they will not, either. No one on either
side of the debate can assert their position with complete confidence.
What we can say with certainty is there has been a failure of
assimilation, that has in part been caused by a rarely acknowledged, yet
generally accepted, narrowed definition of what it means to be Indian.”

Cricket, criticisms and cartoons
cannot be simply deemed seditious by the Uttar Pradesh police because
they are problematic. And, ironically, this is in the shadow of the
largest democratic exercise in the world, the Indian elections, a month
away.